Posted on 01/30/2004 12:39:54 PM PST by Solson
In the South Carolina debate last night, Presidential hopeful and likely Democratic nominee for President had some interesting things to say about the War on Terror.
Namely, Kerry believes the way to combat terror is primarily through a "law enforcement action" as opposed to military action.
Taking a page out of the Clinton administration's view on terror, John Kerry, as President, would once again lead us toward another September 11, 2001.
His comments from the debate:
"That said, they are really misleading all of America, Tom, in a profound way. The war on terror is less -- it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time. And we will need the best-trained and the most well-equipped and the most capable military, such as we have today.
But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world -- the very thing this administration is worst at. And most importantly, the war on terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven't embraced, because otherwise we're inviting a clash of civilizations.
And I think this administration's arrogant and ideological policy is taking America down a more dangerous path. I will make America safer than they are."
And so we have it. John Kerry's stance on combatting terror is to take us back to the days of:
- The first World Trade Center bombing
- Khobar Towers
- Embassy bombings
- USS Cole
John Kerry will take us toward another 9/11 by dealing with terrorism as a law enforcment action.
Do we really want a leader who will shirk his responsibility of the protection of the American People? Do we really want a President Kerry?
Despite all of Bush's faults, this election is too important to sit idle and let someone like John Kerry assume the office.
I don't have patience for that line of thought.
But it is obvious Kerry isn't talking about that. He's talking about reducing our war on terror to scoldings, reprimands, finger shaking, and otherwise talking big yet doing nothing.
This is what got us 9/11. It can only be called appeasement. It can only be described as acting only with a "permission slip."
Ignore the bribes, ignore the UN corruption, ignore the blatant media bias of the BBC, and wag the finger. THAT is the Kerry approach to terrorism. Sadly, the American people may be compelled to believe him.
Don't be fooled. This is just the undercard and it's being fought like it. He's not running for President yet. He's running for the nomination.
Once he has the nomination, it's going to be about the deficit 24x7. And Bush is vulnerable there.
Law enforcement cab only go after the bad guys after they do something bad.
You can't arrest a gang for robbing a bank until they try to rob a bank. The cops can't arrest someone for stealing a car until they try to steal a car. Someone can't be arrested for Murder until they try to murder someone.
You can't arrest a terrorist for flying a plane into your kids school until they try to do it.
Law Enforcement only happens after someone breaks the law.
The Kerry plan. Suicide terrorists blow up your work place and kill you... Then the cops say.. we got 'em..
They aren't "nothing". Fish gotta swim. People gotta eat. While 9-11 is a tragedy, the Dems aren't going to touch it in the general election. It's a loser.
As far as the deficit is concerned, as a percentage of GDP, it is nothing. Jobs are up, people are eating, the economy is rebounding. The correlation between deficits and jobs is tenuous at best.
================================================================
Best of the Web Today - January 30, 2004
By JAMES TARANTO
Kerry: Terror Threat Exaggerated
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/debatetranscript29.html
Tom Brokaw asked John Kerry an excellent question during last night's South Carolina debate:
*** QUOTE ***
Robert Kagan, who writes about these issues a great deal from the Carnegie Institute for Peace, has written recently that Europeans believe that the Bush administration has exaggerated the threat of terrorism, and the Bush administration believes that the Europeans simply don't get it. Who is right?
*** END QUOTE ***
The Democratic front-runner's response should give pause to anyone who cares about national security. Here's the exchange that ensued:
*** QUOTE ***
Kerry: I think it's somewhere in between. I think that there has been an exaggeration and there has been a refocusing--
Brokaw: Where has the exaggeration been in the threat on terrorism?
Kerry: Well, 45 minutes deployment of weapons of mass destruction, No. 1. Aerial vehicles to be able to deliver materials of mass destruction, No. 2. I mean, I--nuclear weapons, No. 3. I could run a long list of clear misleading, clear exaggeration. The linkage to Al Qaida, No. 4.
That said, they are really misleading all of America, Tom, in a profound way. The war on terror is less--it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time. And we will need the best-trained and the most well-equipped and the most capable military, such as we have today.
But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world--the very thing this administration is worst at. And most importantly, the war on terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven't embraced, because otherwise we're inviting a clash of civilizations.
*** END QUOTE ***
Let's go through this step by step. Kerry first agrees, at least in part, with the "European" view that America is exaggerating the threat of terrorism. It was left to John Edwards later to state the obvious: "It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th." You'd think Kerry would have more sensitivity on this subject, given that both the planes that the terrorists crashed into the World Trade Center took off from his home state.
An incredulous Brokaw interrupts Kerry to ask for examples. Kerry list four purported exaggerations of the terror threat, all of which actually have to do with Iraq. Now, we thought the party line was that Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror and was just a "distraction."
Kerry then goes on to outline his philosophy about fighting terrorism. The war on terror, in his view, isn't really a war at all; it's chiefly a matter for intelligence and police agencies. Military action is called for only "occasionally"--exactly the view that prevailed before Sept. 11. Kerry, it seems, has learned nothing from that day's attacks.
Finally, Kerry complains that the U.S. has not entered into "an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally." Yet that is precisely what we are now doing in Iraq. And once again, we see Kerry is all over the map on this stuff. In October 2002 he voted in favor of a war he now denounces. And in October 2003 he voted to defund the troops and the reconstruction effort, yet now he demands "an engagement in the Middle East."
Does Kerry have the ability to make a decision and stick by it? Is it possible to be an effective leader without this capacity?
That's not how it works. I've voted in 9 Presidential elections and what the undercard argues about doesn't make a tinker's dam.
Think about Buchanan, McCain and Bush in the prelim of 2000. It's the same game.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.